Helen Joyce asks very pertinent questions about SEEN.

[Omlettes]

I share her concerns and questions, because we are creating more and more special interest groups without knowing how they operate , what they do, and what will be their future motivations.
Particularly in the police.

"What can the newly founded SEENs (Sex Equality and Equity Networks) learn from the history of workplace affinity groups?"
https://www.thehelenjoyce.com/joyce-activated-issue-89/

I’m taken aback by this.

If I was paid for what I do for my SEEN then perhaps I might agree with Helen, as it is I have taken a risk with my career and volunteered time I don’t have for something which i think is important. We have had to build something to defend ourselves and our fields and it’s been done without funding.

She’s right, transparency matters. Which raises a question - who funds Sex Matters?

I think it's going to be a long time before SEEN develops any kind of oligarchy. I know the issues with affinity groups, but I don't see any of the GC groups being in particular danger of going the way of Stonewall. The material basis just isn't there.

Thinking of my (large public sector) employer, there's an extremely prominent LGBT+ network that's heavily invested in gender woo, and the women's network is actually a gender network that appears to be joined at the hip with the alphabet network. It's hard to judge SEEN because you have to look quite hard to find it, and I don't believe its existence would be tolerated at all if not for recent court cases.

The end game for all GC groups should be to make themselves redundant. We aren't close to that yet.

Yes, it was an LGBT network from the start, it was just that very few people paid very much attention to the T, or knew what it was. I remember a meeting when someone gave a talk about transgender issues, that would have been in about 2012 maybe. And I'm sorry to say I didn't see any harm in it at the time. It didn't make a lot of sense to me, and I remember thinking (and asking) about what it meant to identify as the opposite sex and didn't that reinforce sexist stereotypes, but I didn't get any further than that. I thought it was an entirely fringe issue and if it made a few sad people a bit happier, I couldn't see the harm. Yes, I've come to bitterly regret that, but there were questions I wasn't pursuing back then, and of course looking back I wish I had. I wasn't particularly involved with the network, because it seemed to me that by the time it came along, homophobia was much less of a thing than it had been earlier in my working life, and I didn't feel the need for it, but I was glad it was there for anyone who did want it. I think it got captured because a few zealots wanted it and saw the possibilities with it, and no-one as far as I know could see any reason to stop them until it was too late.

The lesson I've tried to learn from that is to be a whole lot more critical, pursue lines of questioning rather than assume that someone else will, and just because something appears to be wholly virtuous and "right side of history", not to assume it will stay that way.

As I've said, I hope the SEEN groups flourish, and I wish all the volunteers well in their very difficult, against-the-odds, task. And I think Helen Joyce's questions are helpful and relevant.

Helen makes some brilliant questions that absolutely should be answered when a group sets up.

But I disagree with her I think, or perhaps don’t think i would draw the same conclusions from it that she has (but I’m honestly not read up enough in it to confidently give an opinion. I’m just contributing to a discussion here)

She puts her point across with the network rail LGBT+ example. And I think the key point here is what is LGBT+? Most people still think it’s gay rights not enough of us can see the conflict in supporting trans agendas with gay rights. The other movements she describes were also seeking equal rights where many argue T+ is seeking to remove women and gay rights not seek equality as they already have equality.

She says
“It would be awful to create a bunch of new Stonewalls, organisations that have achieved their policy goals but are too venal and self-serving to shut up shop and go home.”

But she also says
“The new SEENs seem to me to be most like the early affinity groups for black Americans, in which a denigrated and discriminated-against group comes together to advocate with employers and for mutual support and protection.“

The American civil rights movement is not an area I can claim much knowledge on. But…… if the SEEN groups are setting up in similar ways to the black Americans of the civil rights era are they such a risk? Do black peoples now dominate white peoples? Have they even successfully gained equality? Legally perhaps but we all know racism and institutional racism is still very much alive.

In the same vein I personally disagree with those saying stonewall achieved its end and should have closed. Legal equality/policy isn't the same as living equality. Maybe I don't understand what stonewall was set up for but was it for more than policy and legal equality? I guess if they only ever wanted legal equality then shifted to tackling homophobia more generally and prejudices they would still be guilty of shifting their focus but it's still seeking equality as it's what straight people have. The mistake they made was to change the group of people they stood for.

Once these groups achieve their aims they will be needed still to keep us from loosing what has been gained. I mean it’s not just American civil rights- look at what's happened to woman's rights now we don't set fire to post boxes or jump in front of horses? Men were always going to try to claw it all back once the suffragettes stopped the fight. Some women have always been telling us this (germaine Greer said women have little idea how much men hate them back in the 70's?) but feminism was infiltrated and subverted so many women don't even want to be called a feminist let alone know what it means. Now we have male feminists centring men within woman's rights at the expense of the women.

The same as what happened with stone wall? It's not gay rights it's erasing gay people making them sterile or life long medical patients, pressure to have sex with men as a woman or you a lesbian are homophobic.

The dominant group be that strait men wanting access to gay women or just men wanting access to women’s events/bodies/opportunities etc have infiltrated the groups. It’s not the groups themselves that is the problem. The problem was thinking we won once we got equal rights and not realising this is an eternal battle that will need maintenance to not loose what was hard fought for

So rather than getting practical help from Sex Matters, all these vulnerable, harried, volunteers who are putting their livelihoods on the line and not getting paid for their work for SEEN should ALSO alongside all this extra volunteering, do what the (fully paid) members of SM say about reflective practice? Patronising much?

Reads very much to me that the SEEN groups said 'yes, we're not your employees and aren't going to do what you tell us to' and this is the result.

100% agree with this.

My opinion of HJ has just sunk like a stone.

What a disingenuous reply, and disrespectful too to these volunteers who are not only doing this for free and fitting it in between other responsibilities, but who are also risking their livelihoods by doing so. Unlike SM for whom this now IS their livelihood.

So start a thread about it. No one is stopping you I imagine people would be interested.

Sex Matters is a lobby groups, so it's mandate, trajectory, and structure is differernt than workplace affinity groups like SEEN, the answers to the same questions aren't likely to be the same for both groups.

Maybe the end game is to change the form of workplaces affinity groups all together?

Several people have said that a lot of trouble started with what had been LGB networks and women's networks. That suggests an issue with the way groups like this can and do behave in the workplace.

I think a principle with a group like this has to be that they actually represent the real views of all people with the "affinity". Which means, all of those people are going to have, in some sense, to be invested - they have to be involved in selecting leadership and contributing to policy. That creates some real sticky issues though with regard to forcing participation.

I also think that there needs to be a look at whether having a group for people with certain characteristics (or opinions, in the case of SEEN) means others get left unrepresented. Is it fair to have employees who don't have access to representation because they don't tick a box someone thought was relevant.

I would say that if SEEN is really serious about the problem of gender woo in the workplace they should be looking very carefully at how these groups became captured and why the employer accepted the recommendations they gave. That's the real weakness that needs to be dealt with.

Isn’t Helen just describing politics?

I understand that it’s a risk that SEENs, whatever good they do right now, if they are successful might morph into organizations that those that currently support them might be horrified by. But that’s the nature of power. And if you aren’t prepared to develop your power to engage in the fight, you’ve already lost.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Absolutely, SM should also be encouraged to be reflexive and open and accountable.

If one is trying to address a cultural and structural issue then it needs thought about how reactive responses risk mirroring the problem and how to avoid that.

And any group set up to deal with an issue risks perpetuating the issue in order to extend its own existence.

She’s right, transparency matters. Which raises a question - who funds Sex Matters?

It's set up opaquely so we'll never know who the major benfactors are, there's several staff making a comfortable living out of it now - it would be shame for everything to end before they reach retirement, right?

Several people have said that a lot of trouble started with what had been LGB networks and women's networks. That suggests an issue with the way groups like this can and do behave in the workplace.

Would you go into more detail about this 'trouble' that started with the creation of women's and LGB networks? There were women's networks and LGB networks when I started working in the 80s. How do you think that these networks affected the way women and LGB people behave in the workplace? Who was impacted by any change in the behaviour of women and LGB people?

What a disingenuous reply, and disrespectful too to these volunteers who are not only doing this for free and fitting it in between other responsibilities, but who are also risking their livelihoods by doing so. Unlike SM for whom this now IS their livelihood.

I agree. I've not been impressed by some of their sharp elbow tactics recently. I've funded them monthly since they've started but I'm reconsidering that.

I also think that there needs to be a look at whether having a group for people with certain characteristics (or opinions, in the case of SEEN) means others get left unrepresented. Is it fair to have employees who don't have access to representation because they don't tick a box someone thought was relevant.

Those people who don't feel their views are being represented would then either form their own affinity group, as others before them had done, or not. Reaction, counter-reaction. The way the world works.

Stop being so passive. Be like generations of black people, women, disabled, LGB people have had to be — stand up and do something to ensure that your voice is heard. No one ever got things changed by waiting for someone else to come along and do the heavy lifting.

What happened here on FWR? When did so many of you turn into people who do nothing but stand and point at other women? Have you all been sent from TRA HQ to spread disillusion and demoralisation?

What is it, exactly, that you have against SM? The fact that they've managed to get some traction?

I want there to be a plurality of groups so all women are represented. I don't want to diminish Sex Matters per se, I just don't want them to be "in charge" of everything GC and I think Helen's comments here are a bit rich, really.

What is it, exactly, that you have against SM? The fact that they've managed to get some traction?

I have nothing against Sex Matters, unless they try to undermine other womens rights groups by dishonest argument and prevent anyone else also getting traction.

And that article was a dishonest argument (altough honest enough to set out the sleight of hand up front).

There are cats and there are dogs - I will refer to both as 'mammals'.

Mammals are a problem because they bark a lot, and some people buy mammals to look threatening. This mammal is part of an organised gang that steals picnic baskets in Yosemite.

Therefore we need to be wary of Tiddles because she's a mammal and might maul people.

I agree with this. I don't want to see SM go but I was mightily unimpressed with the KPSS and pronouns for favoured AGP messes. I also thought that SM and other groups failing to support a public inquiry after the Cass Review, stank.

I wish them luck with their lobby day but I'm struggling to see the point of it. Or why we should make childcare arrangements and take annual leave for that, when they didn't support SSA and James Esses.

There was also a petition to hold an inquiry that all those groups did not support. Why? It's illogical. What do they have to lose, exactly? What would have been wrong with an inquiry?

And then they've the brass neck to hold an event for SEENs, then two days later HJ writes what does rather look like a snidey blog post about about SEENs. And says she can't remember it. Come on. We aren't stupid.

Worth considering that HJ has said it will 'take thirty years' to fix genderism.

Is that an accurate assessment of the situation? Is it realistic, or is it fatalism?

If genderism could be resolved quite swiftly by reversing capture and fixing legal/law points, then why would it take so long, and would it be necessary to continue to campaign against it should we win the really fairly small changes to law that we need to protect women and children's rights?

With all due respect, who the fuck are you?

As for SM - many of us here are long time supporters of them. FWIW I agree with HJ that organisations need to be reflexive and open to criticism. That also needs to be applied to SM, and I would actually expect her to welcome that approach.

Criticizing someone's rubbish behaviour isn't being 'against' them. I do it to my children and there's no one I'm more in support of (nor who I love more) than them. And I note the hypocritical double standards applied by some posters in that HJs article is fine, but if we say what we don't like or are concerned might happen in the future with SM we're 'against' them. Why does HJ get to say what she thinks and we don't?

I donated money I really needed to spend elsewhere to Maya's case. She did an enormous amount of good with that case but I'm afraid I really don't like the way SM have behaved recently on several issues. They have huge blindspots IMO, particularly around class and safeguarding and the reality of life for those less well off than them.

SM increasingly seem to want to control the GC voice and be the sole representative to the government, but, as demonstrated here, they don't represent all sex realist women and arguably particularly not those most vulnerable to the harms of genderism.

I think losing KPSS is a huge loss - they achieved more practically to protect the most vulnerable women than any other group so far and it didn't take them 30 years. SM did not behave well to KPSS in my opinion.

Not wishing to derail, and I expect there is a thread or two about this that MN's infamous search function will fail to find for me, but would you mind giving me a précis of what happened with KPSS and Sex Matters?

I'm with you. I support SM, I'll forever be grateful to HJ for ripping through the veil with her clarity of thought and expression and advancing the cause with Trans. I don't want SM to be in charge either and don't regard them in that light, perhaps because I'm a lesbian and so coming at things from a Sexuality Matters angle, as well as a Sex Matters one. I too have said in this thread that I'm annoyed with HJ for what she's said on this subject.

Email or tweet Helen and tell her what you think. I will. I've met her on several occasions. She listens.

What I can't bear, from the women posting here, from certain members of the Brighton mean girls, from the purity police, is the snide sniping at women who've put their reputations and possibly even their lives on the line to actually do something to get us out of this mess.

For criticism to be helpful it needs to be clear, specific and open.

All fair comments @GustyFinknottle